Mercedes on used oil analysis

[INDYMAC]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: INDYMAC
It always amazes me how so many BITOGER's with little to no confidence in the usefulness of UOA's and VOA's find their way into the VOA and UOA sections of BITOG, and they even take the time to post something derogatory about the poster for posting a report, the validity of the report, or how the poster uses information gained from the report. Can someone please explain this phenomenon?


The idea is to keep the information on this board factual. Others would apparently like to live in a land of make believe with unicorns and pixies and UOA's that can tell you what oil is the best for your engine and at what rate your engine is wearing.

Many of us do UOA's for their intended purpose: To check for contamination and monitor oil life as well as watching out for any strange anomalies that may be signs of a mechanical issue.


Are you a tribologist? If not, then how can you claim what is factual or not? And why do you participate negatively to those who are interested in tribology?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: INDYMAC
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: INDYMAC
It always amazes me how so many BITOGER's with little to no confidence in the usefulness of UOA's and VOA's find their way into the VOA and UOA sections of BITOG, and they even take the time to post something derogatory about the poster for posting a report, the validity of the report, or how the poster uses information gained from the report. Can someone please explain this phenomenon?


The idea is to keep the information on this board factual. Others would apparently like to live in a land of make believe with unicorns and pixies and UOA's that can tell you what oil is the best for your engine and at what rate your engine is wearing.

Many of us do UOA's for their intended purpose: To check for contamination and monitor oil life as well as watching out for any strange anomalies that may be signs of a mechanical issue.


Are you a tribologist? If not, then how can you claim what is factual or not? And why do you participate negatively to those who are interested in tribology?


1. No, I'm not a tribologist. However, it doesn't take a degree in tribology to follow and comprehend what the tribologists who DO participate or have participated on this site in the past have said about this subject. In fact all it takes is a quick run through the articles on the main page of this bloody site. Doug Hillary took the effort to spell it out in great detail BECAUSE of how ridiculous the discussions about UOA's got on this board.

However, for all his efforts, it would appear that his words have fallen on deaf ears.

2. Please define "participate negatively". Do you perform UOA's? How many have you done? If you've done some, what was your REASON for performing them? Was it the false hope that you could somehow find the "best" oil for your application and track how your engine was "wearing"?

I've done plenty of UOA's and will continue to do them. I however choose to use them for their intended purpose.

Do you know what the primary use of UOA's is outside of BITOG? Do you know why they were developed and who the biggest user base is?

So tell me then, how is correcting somebody's attempt at taking away information that isn't being presented in the data provided being "negative"? This is a board about facts, not opinions and make believe. If you don't like my opinion or facts, then bring your own to dispute them with!

And in that vein, what does having an interest in tribology have to do with being a fan of hyperbole and myth? I'm less interested in tribology because I subscribe to the school of facts and data presented by tribologists, rather than some backyard yardstick for oil performance trumped up by the consumers of $20 oil analysis? Do you realize how silly that sounds?


BTW, in case you've missed it (and I'm unsure how that could be even remotely possible, given you've been here since '06) here is Doug's article on the value of UOA's:

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/used-oil-analysis/

Please tell me what you take away from that.... The opinion of a tribologist with 50 years experience in the industry, MILLIONS of miles of fleet testing and lubricant analysis under his belt and numerous recognized publications.

 

[INDYMAC]

I have no problem with Doug's summary. In fact, I don't see anything that I would disagree with. It's your attitude that I have a problem with. A UOA can provide much more information than contamination levels. So don't try to discourage people new to the forum from trying to learn from their first UOA, or their last of many for that matter. I know after I did my first one, I had more questions than answers. Switching to Dyson Analysis helped in that area, but not everyone has the resources to do so. Everyone has to start somewhere, and a $30 UOA is a good start to wet the appetite. That will eventually lead to a trend, and possibly a professional interpretation if the person decides that the equipment is a keeper.

BITOG is the greatest source of VOA and UOA data for automotive equipment for the general public that I'm aware of. It's also the only resource for real data for our equipment on BITOG. Most everything else is fluff IMO. So please allow us that choose to learn from these forums to do so. If you think the data that we post is useless, then stay away. It's that simple.

 

[Jim Allen]

Indy, my friend, I think you are being a little unfair with OVERKILL. His critiques of UOAs always come backed with information. To me there is a distinction between being "negative" (few if any facts) and being "critical" (fact to back up the critique). Seems to me the overall "theme" here at BITOG could lead to a newcomer being falsely convinced that a $20, one-shot UOA is the answer to all that ails. Both you and OVERKILL know that isn't true but he has taken on the job of being a warning sign.. a counterpoint... to illustrate this. What's wrong with that? Especially if you are there to keep him on his side of the line ( : < ).

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
Indy, my friend, I think you are being a little unfair with OVERKILL. His critiques of UOAs always come backed with information. To me there is a distinction between being "negative" (few if any facts) and being "critical" (fact to back up the critique). Seems to me the overall "theme" here at BITOG could lead to a newcomer being falsely convinced that a $20, one-shot UOA is the answer to all that ails. Both you and OVERKILL know that isn't true but he has taken on the job of being a warning sign.. a counterpoint... to illustrate this. What's wrong with that? Especially if you are there to keep him on his side of the line ( : < ).




Thank you Jim, very well put.

I make no attempt to dissuade people from performing UOA's or learning from them. In fact I encourage them, particularly in situations where they may be of value. And there is PLENTY to learn from a UOA or VOA! The discussion of the chemical composition, TBN retention, and native contaminants make for fantastic conversation pieces! Contrasting add-packs (what we can see of them) of different oils to see who did what and then speculate as to why.... Stimulating conversation that makes you THINK!

I do however make it a point to indicate to people who are attempting to use a basic UOA as a yardstick to contrast oils and measure wear that this is not their purpose.

People should be encouraged to get TBN/TAN and particle counts. People she be encouraged to know WHY they should get those things and what their relevance is when looking at the UOA as a whole. A basic UOA without those items tells us far less. A basic snapshot of contamination levels that may or may not indicate a problem. Certainly not the Holy Grail many seek to obtain.

Just because I want to keep the discussion factual in no way means I do not want it to continue!

 

[SteveSRT8]

People here have always mistakenly assumed way too much from simple oil analysis. Too many conclusions from too little information.

 

[Jim Allen]

Placing too much faith in a UOA early in the lubricant education really is an easy trap to fall into. Most of us could probably say we started there. If all you've known previously is change the oil at 3K and using the oil brand and weight your father used, a UOA could seem like magic. With learning, the magic pales a bit and you determine how to use the tool properly and within it's limitations.

 

[INDYMAC]

Maybe I was unfair OVERKILL, and I apologize. I read this board early in the morning, and maybe I just didn't get enough sleep. I was excited to see the original post, yet the follow-up discussion seemed to take a very negative tone/attitude towards UOA's. That was the impetus for my post. I think if the VOA/UOA section disappeared from BITOG, I would never visit again.

 

[Jim Allen]

Originally Posted By: INDYMAC
Maybe I was unfair OVERKILL, and I apologize. I read this board early in the morning, and maybe I just didn't get enough sleep. I was excited to see the original post, yet the follow-up discussion seemed to take a very negative tone/attitude towards UOA's. That was the impetus for my post. I think if the VOA/UOA section disappeared from BITOG, I would never visit again.


Amen!

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: INDYMAC
Maybe I was unfair OVERKILL, and I apologize. I read this board early in the morning, and maybe I just didn't get enough sleep. I was excited to see the original post, yet the follow-up discussion seemed to take a very negative tone/attitude towards UOA's. That was the impetus for my post. I think if the VOA/UOA section disappeared from BITOG, I would never visit again.


No hard feelings

I agree, with the UOA section gone, it would seriously take away from the appeal of the board.